i) -
; machine tools, and con-
1 te N industries.

tae coied “social contract”
714 the the Labour government
| other ‘Sieg unions — in fact

OP ts rep Orm of wage restraint
Of the €rred to as “the heart”
4 Pe niesto.

-~ IS a firm pledge on the
ec Market that, within 12
awe the election, a Labour
ih peo ae Would give the Brit-
Wout bie the final say—which
Ment ° binding on the govern-

oe through the ballot box.
“| Minen N's equality figures pro-

aM in the manifesto and a
lne 1S given over to an out-
Yomen » * “new: charter for

(3
if

The manifesto declared that
Britain faced its most dangerous
crisis since the second world
war. “The next two or three
years are going to be difficult for
us all” it said. “There would be

no easy time and no easy pick-

ings for anyone”.
‘Right Course’

But it promised that, given
“unity” and provided the British
people give the government their
full backing, then “we shall
weather the storm and get back
to the right course.”

Excusing the limited nature of
many of the proposals, the mani-
festo said that much of what
Labour wanted to do would take

has begun the fight to end

ie Communist Party of Great Britain ;
“Sion from political broadcasts during the general election
on. A deputation of the Party me: with John Crawley (centre)
ae the, asking him to recommend to the government corporation

Stoss discrimination” against the CPGB end.

“Icnger because of the “heavy

spadework” which must be done
to create economic strength.
The document is entitled:
“Britain will win with Labour.”
There is a specific rejection
in the document of the policies
put forward by some Tories of
throwing millions of people out

of work in order to fight infla-

tion. :

The Labour Party has gone
into the election campaign beset
with internal division. In recent
weeks, three Labour lords have
resigned, and the right wing of
the party is attempting to black-
mail the growing left-wing sen-
timent into submission.

An important Labour cabinet

minister, Shirley Williams, (Con-
sumer Affairs) said she would
quit the party if Britain voted
to pull out of the Common Mar-
ket. She made the statement at
the Labour Party’s daily press
conference on Sept. 25.

Mr. Wilson, - sitting nearby,
almost turned green, especially
as he is trying to preserve the
image of Labour Party unity to
press and public.

And, following on the heels of
Mrs. Williams’ shocker, Roy
Jenkins, Labour Home secretary
and prominent _right-winger,
also announced in a press state-
ment that he too would resign
from the cabinet if Britain were
to pull out of the Common Mar-
ket.

One of the Communist Party’s election posters that will be spread

throughout Great Britain during the election campaign. “There is
a way out of the crisis”, the Communist Party, declares, and the
poster shows one of the ways that it can be done.

“18

4 ( ere di
"stil

Zation in the 1950’s.

ih 4
¢ hag ie

is
at

to
Poli ?’mote industry. This na-
Ushe.. ct, the Portuguese bour-
In a period of relatively

Seg "8 of medium and small
Y monopoly began in
eri o80s, although the ten-
% "ing N present for some time.
Dep Point in the post “World
Pain, “2S Marked by the elec-
Of General Delgado in

emerging middle c

Socialist Party.) The fascists,
mitted publicly

that even the

1958 which was a warning of the
lass. Delgado was an

‘old fascist’ who defected to oppose

Salazar. (His campaign leader of the
time was M. Soares, now leader of the

trolled the rigged electoral process, ad-
that Delgado secured

about 25% of the votes. From the fact
fascists were compelled

to admit such a large opposition vote,

“i

and personal knowledge of the voting
areas, there is a widespread belief that
Delgado probably secured a majority
of the votes. Delgado was assassinated
in the 1960’s by the PIDE (the fascist
secret police, renamed the DGS when
Caetano came to power).

port of capital and the non-colonial
international connections of Portuguese
monopoly develop as an important
feature of Portuguese capitalism. While
this tendency and other features of
Portuguese capitalism conform to
Lenin’s characterization of ‘imperial-
ism’, it must be> emphasized that the
Portuguese economy can‘be character-
ized only as one of the weakest mem-
ber of the imperialist group. In parti-
cular, the development of the’ produc-
tive forces is highly uneven and the
advanced sectors are limited to a few
areas. As well, although the export of
capital is important, it is small by com-
parison to the major capitalist coun-
tries. Portugal still carries with it much
of its history of dependency and sub-
ordination, even though this is decreas-

ing.

It is a key feature of the Portuguese
political economy that the main mo-
nopoly groups are all Portuguese. For-

It is in this latest period that the ex- .

eign capital has a limited penetration

in some of them such as Groupe Es-
pirito Santo (which has significant con-
nections with the Chase Manhatten
Bank), but the “commanding heights”
re nearly all Portuguese. When there
is foreign penetration, it frequently
takes the form of joint ventures rather
than wholly-owned subsidiaries, in
both monopoly and non-monopoly sec-
tors. In agricultural production, for
example, Jose Maria da Fonseca (the
owner of Faisca rosé) has a joint ven-
ture with Heublein (producers of Smir-
nov Vodka, owned by Coca-Cola) to
produce vodka in Portugal, and Sea-
grams has a joint venture with Maciere
e Ca to produce brandy. There are
also foreign joint ventures, such as an
Angolan bank, Banco Interunido, which
was formed as a joint venture of Espi-

ranto Santo and First National City -

Bank.

While Portuguese monopolies have
major power within Portugal itself,
they are sometimes dependent on other
monopolies, for example, in the acqui-
sition of raw material supplies. Typi-
cally, Portuguese .monopolies do not
have the same degree of control of
raw material sources as is the case
with the monopolies of the more de-
veloped imperialist countries — espe-
cially since the development of the
liberation movements in the colonies.
For example, while some of the most
important investments of the recent
times are in the petrochemical industry
(by CUF), the large oil monopolies,
such as ESSO and Shell, control distri-
bution and supply. -

1930
2 1940
1950
1960
1970

Evolution of the number of owners and productive workers.
—absolute figures, in thousands

Year Owners
644.3") — 494.0

Source: Analise Social 39, 1974.
(*Includes self-employed, this year only)

Productive Workers

624.7
767.8
913.6
1010.3

2 PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1974—Page 7